The Arizona culture IS different, but still not what it was at one time, which would have probably prevented this shooting from even being attempted. Much of the rest of the country are like sheep in a pen - hoping to be fed and taking what they get.

I think VA would also have a strong gun culture, but it might be one more confined to the more rural areas. Keep in mind Richmond is often considered part of Megalopolis and much of the VA coast is pretty well urbanized.

AZ is definitely different - far more Conservative, people fleeing CA as far back as the late 50s. And the wilderness, as such, is a lot closer at hand. Although Phoenix and Tucson are fairly built up, a lot of the 'burbs in both places qualify as wide open spaces (to this greenhorn, at least).

"One VT professor, a holocaust survivor and Israeli citizen block the door with his body and allowed students to escape before losing his life."

I remember that. A brave soul and God bless him. Obviously many people are of the mind to defend themselves and others - to the point of sacrificing themselves in the process. But just think if he had been legally armed. Could he have stopped the shooter and lived? Or saved more lives?

We'll never know I guess, but if offered the choice in such a situation, I would rather be armed than not.

By the way, I can recall a mass shooting in New York City (but you have to go back about 20 years). The Long Island city subway shooting. And New Yorkers (who are not familiar with gun culture) also tackled the shooter.

Do you remember that at Ft Hood Mj Hasan got to fire away at will because...the U S Army disarms soldiers on the post. Authorities seem to have no faith in other people. We really need a Sarah Palin type to set us a good example on how to live among good people.

The thing could have gone on for 60 more shots if Badger and the other guy hadn't taken the initiative. Much was made the other day about the intern rendering first aid, which while great and worthy of recognition, doesn't pass my test for heroic.

Heroic is putting your life on the line for others. Being 74 and wrestling with a 22 y/o over a gun could have gotten iffy

"Virginia's not a state with a vibrant gun culture? Really??? Talk about revisionist history."

Virginia Tech prohibits students and faculty from carrying firearms on campus, permits or not. Had they allowed such legal carry, perhaps the shooter would have been killed quickly intead of having so much time to go on his rampage.

I think the point Giffords was making was that people there aren't afraid of guns. I mean, even a 9mm pointed at you can seem like a damned howitzer, but if you're used to guns and don't fear them then that's very different from people who are petrified at the very sight of a gun.

Not long ago a woman published a book about how she and her sister were raped as teenagers by a man who brandished a toy pistol at them. That would be harder to pull off had the young women been used to guns -- there's a real chance they'd have recognized that the gun in his hand couldn't shoot them.

There was at least one armed person who helped restrain the shooter. But he didn't pull the gun and shoot because the man was already stopped. Responsible people with guns don't just shoot because they can,which would be the way the left would see the scene: everyone with a gun blasting away.

TWM: In the NY Daily article from the previous post, Joe Zamudio said, "I was at the store buying cigarettes. I was at the counter when I heard the gun shots. I put my hand on my gun and ran out." So it wouldn't have been long.

And right on cue, the Milwaukee Journal comes out endorsing gun control, on the false premise that a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban would have made a difference in this shooting.

Funny (scary?) to me that the first impulses of so many are to restrict the Constitutional rights of speech and the right to bear arms.

(The Crypto Jew)Virginia's not a state with a vibrant gun culture? Really??? Talk about revisionist history.

Why do these mass shootings predominantly take place where gun culture is dominant?

Do they, they take place WHERE THE TARGET POPULATION IS UNARMED, DTL…schools, or malls, places where the shooter will NOT encounter armed resistance. Two cases, the Appalachian State law School and one other school shooting were ended when ARMED BYSTANDERS confronted the gunman.

downtownlad: Virginia has plenty of guns but they are banned on campus. Plus kids today are trained to be pussies from the moment they are born and would never consider a heroic act. Do you live in Japan? Usually less than a dozen handgun murders in that country every year, less than a good weekend night in LA or Memphis. Nice homogeneous population, strict conservative culture.

There are two kinds of people: gun savvy and not. Those I've known who are not, simply cringe, panic, or hide at the sight of one. Those familiar with guns are a thousand times more likely to stop such an asshole. To not accept that, you have to be a fool or a fine pussy of a lad.

People forget that Ariz. is one of our newest states. I remember a dinner-table conversation I had with the grand-mother of a college room-mate in Louisiana in 1965. somehow the subj. of Ariz and the Grand Canyon came up. "Oh yes" piped up Granny (then in her 70s and who managed her large farm/small plantation in Cotton-Port La. all by herself--even still plowed with mules--was out at 4am every morning supervising/helping farm-hands hitch up the mules) "Of course the last time I was through Ariz it was still a Territory." LOL!! The "frontier mentality" in Ariz is still fresh as the the actual "frontier" in Ariz is really not that long go..

@Calypso, the Assault Weapons Ban made illegal the extended (30 round) magazine that Loughner had hanging out of the bottom of his handgun. According to this web site the normal Glock magazine that Loughner would have had carries 15 rounds plus one in the chamber, so a large number of people still would have been shot.

My question is a bit more basic. A Glock 19 is pretty expensive -- how did an out-of-work loser afford a $500 pistol?

There are two kinds of people: gun savvy and not. Those I've known who are not, simply cringe, panic, or hide at the sight of one. Those familiar with guns are a thousand times more likely to stop such an asshole. To not accept that, you have to be a fool or a fine pussy of a lad.

And you have to marvel at the Libtard logic - millions spent teaching kids how to roll a condom onto a bannana. Not one dime teaching them how to safely handle a firearm.

I recall a school shooting where the perp was disarmed by a kid who knew enough about firearms to rush in while the perp was reloading.

If stopping gun related deaths was really their priority, they would apply the same "safe sex" teachings to "safe guns". But as we already know, the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.

Well, I've been a math professor at Virginia Tech since 1988. Just to clear up some misconceptions.

1. We are in Blacksburg, a town of 35,000, not Richmond.

2. There is a pretty vibrant gun culture here. A larger percentage of faculty members that I know own guns and hunt than in other places I've been (including Madison). Never been to Arizona, so I can't compare.

3. The shooting here took place in a corridor of classrooms. The shooter was able to shoot from cover, and place himself in a tactically good position. I have not been reading the details of the Tuscon shooting. I find it rather painful.

4. I've been at Tech long enough so that I was here both before and after the time guns were banned on campus. The only issue that I recall coming up at the time was where the students would be able to store hunting rifles. The fact is that this is a very peaceful rural campus. I don't know of anyone who kept a gun in their office before the ban. I've asked many of my friends on the faculty and none of them claim to have done so. (I did hear second hand of one retired professor who kept a pistol.) I'm all for campus gun rights, but it is a fantasy to think that many people will carry weapons in places they perceive to be very safe. This is especially true in safe, crowded places like schools or malls where dangers of carrying increase and the benefits of carrying decrease.

If it weren't for you conservative Establishment-types and your worship at the altar of Violence, there wouldn't be anything to stop!

How about "no shooting people" instead of stopping the shooting once its started?

Right here in these comments! What's been the big topic of 2010??... it's been the use of violence to undo what Obama and Team Democrat have wrought... You guys have been chomping at the bit for someone to go off the edge.

You guys wanted violence, you got it! Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back...

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- ought be a convenience store, not a government agency.

Tight gun control is no guarantee of "safety." Take, for example the 1989 mass shootings at École Polytechnique in Montréal. Fourteen women were killed, singled out because they were studying sciences.

Since then there have been three more school shootings in Montréal: Concordia in '92, Yves Thériault in '97, and Dawson in '06.

Montréal has about the same population as Kansas, and I guarantee you we have a couple of orders of magnitude more guns around here.

Or, take Sweden, with a population about like that of North Carolina or Georgia and some of the tightest gun controls in the world. They've had two major political assassinations in the last 20 years: a prime minister, and a foreign minister, one shot, the other stabbed.

Most American gun deaths are related to drug gang wars and deals gone bad. We're talking about a deeply defective urban culture here, but that's another discussion.

No Big Mike the AWB did NOT make the 30 rd magazine illegal…it made further manufacture or import of the 30 rd magazine ILLEGAL. Had you possessed one when the ban passed you could keep AND re-sell it.

"Right here in these comments! What's been the big topic of 2010??... it's been the use of violence to undo what Obama and Team Democrat have wrought"

Have you been paying attention at all? Would it matter to you what you read here. Some of the biggest outrages here have been when Obama or his supporters call for, or commit, violence for political gain as in the "bring a knife to gun fight" nonsense.

You are wasting your time reading if you can't even get the main plot lines here.

Everybody else, yeah, I should have realized -- if you're planning to be shot down by police after blowing away a crowd full of people then the amount you owe on your credit card is a plus, not a minus.

Having a son at college now, I myself like the idea of a few professors carrying concealed on campus.

I would throw in grad students too. But undergrads? Especially not freshmen (and, I suppose, freshwomen (or is it freshwomyn?)). I am not happy with trusting 18 year olds, a bunch of whom spend at least half their time drunk or stoned, with loaded weapons. Indeed, even with cars.

What is this... the fourth day of you all coming together and telling each other that you "conservatives" are not responsible for the shooting?

Day four!

FOUR!

If you can't convince yourselves after three days, then you might want to give up... You can just accept the fact that while you are not responsible for Crazy Dude's shoot-em-up actions, violence like that is nonetheless what you asked for.

@TWM - Here's what I could find, "Any such individual who is reported or discovered to possess a firearm or weapon on university property will be asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply may result in a student conduct referral and/or arrest, or an employee disciplinary action and/or arrest."

(The Crypto Jew) If you can't convince yourselves after three days, then you might want to give up... You can just accept the fact that while you are not responsible for Crazy Dude's shoot-em-up actions, violence like that is nonetheless what you asked for.

So your argument comes down to this, there’s a time limit to defense? You can defend yourselves only X amount of time, and after that the other side/prosecution gets to hammer on? How long is the time? How does it vary and who sets the limit? OJ Simpson, obviously, could argue his innocence for years, but Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh only get DAYS, right?

What you’re trying now is merely a variant of, “Me thinks the lady doth protest, too much.” Our defense is now EVIDENCE OF OUR GUILT, right? You ARE good, well no not really, but thank you for advancing a new meme…if it catches on do you get points with hippie Chicks?

Let's not exaggerate. The prior AWB did not "make illegal" such magazines. The only restriction it placed on magazine capacity was that newly-manufactured magazines that held greater than 10 rounds could be sold to law enforcement only. Retail sale to consumers of magazines manufactured before the cutoff date was perfectly fine, and the secondary market was completely untouched. Manufacturers did a huge ramp-up of production before the cutoff date, so that availability after the effective date was not much of an issue (though prices were noticably higher.)

Bob_R,

Thanks for your perspective. I think you're needlessly pessimistic about the "fantasy" of significant numbers carrying in a perceived-safe place. It simply needs a little education*, and consider now how we have immense, ongoing media bias in exactly the opposite direction.

----------------------------*I mean simple in the Clausewitzian sense, of course. :-)

Julius, dude, we are just covering for the evil Sarah Palin, the most powerful woman, the most powerful person, in the galaxy! We don't want people like you throwing a citizen's arrest on her so we are here at day four (in all caps in your world) trying to divert attention from the obvious fact, the indisputable fact, that Sarah Palin targeted the congresswoman for death at the hands of a crazy lefty. So cut us some slack.

"If you can't convince yourselves after three days, then you might want to give up... You can just accept the fact that while you are not responsible for Crazy Dude's shoot-em-up actions, violence like that is nonetheless what you asked for."

If you can't convince yourselves after three days, then you might want to give up... You can just accept the fact that while you are not responsible for Crazy Dude's shoot-em-up actions, violence like that is nonetheless what you asked . . .

So denying you're violent and dangerous for four days is now proof you are violent and dangerous?

When anything and everything is proof "Those People You Don't Like" are bad and evil, then maybe you're the one with the problem in the head.

Thanks for your perspective. I think you're needlessly pessimistic about the "fantasy" of significant numbers carrying in a perceived-safe place

The issue with bans on CC in "public" places (e.g. schools, churches, shopping ceneters etc) is that it sets up a safe environment for a potential killer.

Far better that a potential killer have concern that somebody among the sheep might be packing, even though the probability is very small.

it's the same issue with missile defense. with a potential enemy state with a small number of weapons, the issue is not that the US can be assured of stopping all incoming missiles, but that it may be able to, or that in order to assure target destruction, one must launch 3 missiles on a target.

Kirk - Think of the amount of training, practice, and ordinance that went into preparing Ft. Hood in 2009. Is there any way that a college campus equal that? Think of the number of deaths and injuries the military incurs from misfire, malfunction, and misuse to achieve that level of preparation.

In short, I think that people did a back of the envelope cost/benefit analysis long before any of these campus bans and decided not to carry in places like school. I have not seen any convincing analysis that a greater level of gun possession on campus will result in greater net safety. The Ft. Hood shooting has only added to my skepticism.

Despite my skepticism of its utility in this situation I feel that self defense is a fundamental human right and individual gun ownership is a black letter constitutional right that the government should not take away.

The Armed Private Citizen Hero is a great idea for those who believe in the magical corrective powers of having a warm gun in one's hands to defeat evil and win the day...

However.....

The budding armed hero in Tucson interviewed admitted he was about a second from shooting the guy he saw with the gun, who happened to be the man who wrested the gun away from the assassin. He said while familiar with guns, he never was trained to shoot in a high stress crowd situation. Asked why he hesitated to pull his gun from his pocket, he sensibly said he was worried that there was a risk that cops arriving or there, or some other armed private citizen would see him and blow him away - assuming he was the gunman.

1. The "record" of armed hero private citizens seeking to become cops shows that most make "mistakes" in initial police deadly force training. (A euphemism for accidentally shooting civilian targets instead of the bad guys).

2. The record of Hero Cops after completing such training is much better - but there are still many "incidents" of cops blowing away armed undercover cops, off duty cops out of uniform, and citizens unlucky enough to have a cell phone or dark wallet in their hands.

3. Even trained cops have serious problems with stress and fire discipline. One lady cop shot 3, killing 1 innocent store customers and employees after hearing a loud noise (not a shot but a robber kicking in a door trying to escape).And deputies 3 years ago fired 78 shots into a vehicle containing an unarmed black drunk, miraculously not killing him. That started with a deputy accidentally discharging his weapon as he tried to withdraw it, then the deputies discharged all their magazines, reloaded and were on bullet #78 when cease fire was ordered. All in under 10 seconds.

4. Keep in mind that if you are a gun lover in love with the Armed Hero concept - that if you wade into a crowd firing your beloved "great stopping power" weapon to defeat evil and bask in the glow of Herp-hood....one thing. Cops are protected by sovereign immunity and the state from being personally sued for much "heat of the battle" collateral damage, if they show good judgement and follow procedures.You, as a private citizen, are not. You wound or disable someone, you will have your ass sued off. If you kill the wrong person, you could go past tort into criminal charges. Stray round of yours smashes an engine block? You pay.Something else to think about.

The Crypto Jew)In short, I think that people did a back of the envelope cost/benefit analysis long before any of these campus bans and decided not to carry in places like school. I have not seen any convincing analysis that a greater level of gun possession on campus will result in greater net safety. The Ft. Hood shooting has only added to my skepticism.

Despite my skepticism of its utility in this situation I feel that self defense is a fundamental human right and individual gun ownership is a black letter constitutional right that the government should not take away.

Funny, because STATES with Concealed Carry have a lower crime rate, but that wouldn’t carry over to individual portions of states…again, please note where these tragedies occur, not gun stores, not gun shows, but places where the perp BELIEVES s/he will face unarmed people, schools, churches, malls, and the like….

IF Defense is a fundamental Right, then how can you support a limitation upon it, without empirical evidence to support your assetion?

Cedarford, your point is well-taken, but it comes across more as “concern trolling”…certainly for concealed carry, the holder of the license must take not only range and gun classes, but a class on the law, as it pertains to the use of deadly force in your state. A CCW Holder might very well have understood this, and in fact, it seems that the person DID understand it as there was no ensuing blue-on-blue bloodbath.

Cedarford: You have the concept slightly wrong. Gun advocates are not pining for a gun hero. They believe that potential killers and madmen are not quite so mad as to pick places where people are armed to do their evil. Soldiers in Ft. Hood were not permitted to carry arms on the base. Schoolrooms are a pretty safe place for madmen. But when we see a madman going off at a gun show then I know that we have been mistaken in our belief in the deterrent value of an armed citizenry.

Drill Sgt - It's a valid argument, but it only works on shooters that are rational. For Cho, getting killed was a feature, not a bug.

Again, I'm against government gun bans in most situations. But I don't think more widespread ownership will do much if anything to prevent random violence by psychotics. Sneak attacks have worked against highly trained and armed military organizations for a long, long time.

But I admit I'm a little leery of people carrying if they have not been trained. Their tendency is to reach for the gun and put their figure inside the trigger guard, before they intend to shoot, and this causes all sorts of mishaps. Hell even cops do this. But it's a hard and fast principle of shooting, you don't go there until you're ready to fire.

I don't know how to control this. The CCP people here have to take a class, but plenty people carry who don't have the permit I'm sure.

(The Crypto Jew)Again, I'm against government gun bans in most situations. But I don't think more widespread ownership will do much if anything to prevent random violence by psychotics.

You use the wrong verb, “Prevent” and it may reveal faulty thinking. It’s not about “Preventing” violence, it’s dealing with its inevitable outbreaks. No one claims that you or anyone will “deter” a psychotic, but it may well allow you to deal with him/her…quickly and with less collateral damage than otherwise. However, IN GENERAL, it seems to deter violence, because this violence tends to occur where there are masses of unarmed people, suggesting that even lunatics choose easy targets.

You probably live in a country that is far more violent than the US, its just not in gun crimes. In a country with no guns, a little old lady is helpless to a thug with a knife. In the US, if she's packing a pistol she has a chance of killing the thug before he kills her.

Its funny how much emphasis goes into guns. The world was a violent murderous place for millions of years before guns came along.

I happen to be in favor of concealed carry, but with mandatory classes. And each person trained on what would be a valid use of deadly force and their liability exposure.I had such a permit when I carried out business with cash sums back in the early 90s, right out of the military.

But anyone with armed hero fantasies without training or a clue of how they stand in the law - if they have a gun, best limit themselves to the "zone" of personal self defense of themselves and others with a justifiable sense of imminent risk to life and limb obvious.

But hearing shots across a Mall, sprinting to the scene, pulling your Hero weapon and meting out justice by the barrel into a milling crowd? You are asking for it - lawyers will follow once things have settled down, seek to 2nd guess you, and in all likelihood, successfully carve out large chunks of your flesh, free time, and life savings.

Gun nut slogans like better to be judged by 6 than carried by 6 aside, unless you can prove it was you or someone right near you in peril of major injury or death. You need to get a quick determination by the state that you engaged in a legitimate use if deady force by firearms. Otherwise, you will never be judged by 6. You will be forced to settle or plea before any "jury trial" in all probability..and even if it does go to trial..you will be financially ruined even if the jury finds you innocent.

The gun culture in AZ, at least in Phoenix, isn't quite as overt as in Utah and Nevada, where I am now. In Utah, the firm apparently paid for the cost of a concealed carry permit for attorneys at one point. And, I was assured that there were likely several carrying weapons on any given day - I just never knew which ones. And, I know a number of attorneys here in NV who also carry. Sometimes. You almost never know though, because their weapons are, well, concealed.

It just didn't seem as common when I was working in Phoenix. I did turn into the bad guy, when I posted the no weapons sign at the plant. But that was because our U.S headquarters were outside Boston, and international headquarters were in France. So, I told the guys I knew who had carry permits that if I didn't see anything, I couldn't do anything about it. Hint. Hint.

Now, if I lived in AZ, I would get a concealed carry permit, train, and carry. It is just too dangerous throughout much of the state, and it has nothing to do with how many people are legally packing, and everything to do with lax border enforcement by their former governor.

(The Crypto Jew)AgainBut anyone with armed hero fantasies without training or a clue of how they stand in the law - if they have a gun, best limit themselves to the "zone" of personal self defense of themselves and others with a justifiable sense of imminent risk to life and limb obvious.

Straw man Argument…please point out where this has happened, in ACTUALITY…IIRC in Ky. the Vice Principal retrieved a pistol from his car…at Appalachia State the students retrieved a pistol from their car…at the mall shooting, the off-duty officer retrieved a pistol from his car, at the church shooting the security guard drew her pistol…in NONE OF THESE CASES was there this “Armed hero” charging about blindly firing Cedarford.

Yes, police do have serious problems with fire discipline. In fact, armed citizens are much LESS likely to accidentally shoot innocent people because they are much more likely to know what is happening and who the bad guys are.

It is a good thing that no responding citizen shot another one in the AZ incident. We must admit that we were a bit lucky in that unarmed citizens were able to disarm Mr. Loughner as quickly as they were.

I am very glad that armed people responded. They could have saved many lives -- as they have in other incidents.

Much better than the situation at VA Tech where no one had a gun in that "gun-free zone" and the shooting went on for a long time.

Julius' charge that conservatives "worship at the altar of violence" is surreal. More and more I think that is the greatest problem conservatives have: how do we have a conversation with those who have willingly surrendered themselves to looneytuneland?

(The Crypto Jew)More and more I think that is the greatest problem conservatives have: how do we have a conversation with those who have willingly surrendered themselves to looneytuneland?

You make a good point, BUT it’s not our job to have a “conversation”, especially with the likes of Julius or Alpha. The conversation is with the “middle” and our job is to enact public policy that advances our goals. The ends are public policy, not conversation…the means are elections, and secondarily “talking” but talking NOT to Alpha or Julius, but to those who don’t comment, much or at all, but who do read or hear these conversations. Again a conversation is only a MEANS, not an end in and of itself…I don’t care so much if I talk to Julius so much if can refutiate his/her arguments, or show Alpha or HDHouse to be the nasty sort that they are, to the “undecided.”

I'm completely missing your point regarding Ft. Hood. Could you elaborate a bit more on that?

As far as cost/benefit analysis, do you know anyone who actually carries? For me, there's no calculation of relative risk per location involved at all--the pocket pistol simply goes in the pocket first thing in the morning, and comes out last thing in the evening. The whole premise is being prepared for a low-probability but high-cost event; you don't leave your seatbelt off until right before you're going to have a collision, right?

DTL,

"I'm proud to live in a country where guns are banned..."

I'm so glad to live in a country where you aren't.

Cedarford,

You are one sick puppy. Your pathetic condescension says way more about you than it does anything else.

I can: Washington. And I'm completely in favor of our way, too: if you look at the stats over the long term, incidents by permit holders are pretty much everywhere down in the statistical-noise level (i.e. when there is an isolated event, it really skews the stats for a while because it is so unusual.)

This is not to say I'm not in favor of training, both actual range time and in knowledge of legal aspects. I actually put my money (er, rather precious free time, a commodity much less capable of being expanded than mere money) so some local firearm safety training efforts. But I am adamantly against giving the government the ability to exercise prior restraint against such a fundemental human right. Fortunately, most of our fellow-citizens here in WA (and in similar place like VT) are responsible enough that they do adequately prepare themselves, hence the statistical parity with other places that do err on the side of more government control.

It goes for all of WA. We have very strong state preemption of firearm regulation, and--despite the well-deserved liberal reputation--Seattle is about as gun-friendly as anywhere else, apart from the Mayor's office (which, thanks to state preemption, has vary limited ability to actually trample on anyone's rights, but must make do with making itself look foolish with silly public pronouncements.)

But the Seattle PD and King County Sheriff are pretty darn good, including being fairly respectful of open carry.

So yeah, it's cool--but I'd once again emphasize that the coolness is not in that people can carry arms without training, but rather that the state doesn't get to curtail that right unless you're an actual criminal or mentally ill to the point of having been involuntarily committed.

let me note that the VA Tech shooting was on a college campus, probably one of the most liberal spots in the state. i suspect if they tried that in a non-college area, the man would not have had the chance to reload.

I don't know what the connection is between a gun culture and the instinct to tackle and wrestle the shooter down. At Virginia Tech, as I remember the reports, people didn't run at the shooter. They waited in their places for their turn to be shot.

This reminds me of the situation on 9/11, when people in hijacked planes were following the old advice to sit still and be obedient, because that would produce the best odds of survival, and a few guys in one of the planes realized that advice was bad.

Had they allowed such legal carry, perhaps the shooter would have been killed quickly intead of having so much time to go on his rampage.

The shooter entered several classrooms. If any male VT students had balls, they could have taken him in any of those doorways except the first.

Sadly instead of men America is raising girls with penises.

Yeah, yeah, yeah… I would, alternatively, submit that IF you take a crowd of INDIVIDUALS, a herd, if you will, and present them with a very short time frame to decide to act as a pack or a herd, they will act as a herd…Flight 93 KNEW that the airplane had, most likely, been hijacked by people who were going to crash it…and then the hijackers allowed them time to coalesce into a pack, and please note, not all passengers, we believe, participated. What happened at Virginia Tech has nothing to do with teaching non-violence, or rearing boys as girls, or the slacker youth of today, but has EVERYTHING to do with human psychology….I would further state that IF you were to walk into a USMC Recruit Barracks, on the first night of Boot Camp, you could do the same carnage…because the men in that barracks are not a UNIT, but INDIVIDUALS, and in that case the “rational” decision is to leave it to someone else to act. Please could we drop Virginia Tech or this tragedy in Arizona as somehow “our decadent society” in microcosm shtick? A Shtick wherein the event confirms “my beliefs” concerning the rottenness of current society.

Re the linked NPR interview of Giffords: this is a great example of the centrist politics of Gabby Gifford. In all of the back and forth between conservatives and liberals it seems lost that her defeat was pursued by BOTH conservatives and liberals. Her views well fit a district that includes Tucson (a fairly liberal university town) and southeast Arizona including, yes, Tombstone.

Having said that, I have to reiterate that I've seen NOTHING in the extensive local coverage to indicate there was anything political about the shooter or his motives, only his target.

All of this "psychoanalysis" of Arizona misses several key points:1) I doubt that the shooter would not have been able to purchase a handgun in any of our 50 states (no serious criminal record...)2) There is nothing distinctly "Arizona" about his background. Where he lives is a typical middle class suburb-like area of northern Tucson.

If you want to debate troubling political rhetoric, fine but don't use this case as the starting point. Likewise, if you want to discuss Arizona politics, that's ok too but nothing about Arizona politics lead to this shooting.

PS: I'm a registered Republican, not a "gun guy" and pretty liberal regarding immigration. Gabby Giffords is the sort of Democrat that I would have strongly considered voting for if I lived in her distict.

(The Crypto Jew)I am not happy with trusting 18 year olds, a bunch of whom spend at least half their time drunk or stoned, with loaded weapons. Indeed, even with cars.

Just noticed that quote. That’s funny because we entrust them with M-4 carbines, M-249 SAW’s, M-240 GPMG, Carl Gustav Recoilless Rifles, mortars, howitzers, and allow them to drive multi-million dollar death machines, like the M-1/2/3, LAV, or Stryker…we entrust them with the operation and maintenance of NUCLEAR WEAPONS….funny how he’s a pimple-faced, snot-nosed Teeny-bopper when he’s a Bagger at Aldi’s or Meijers but a Hero when he’s in ACU’s/MarPat humping a ruck in Afghanistan or maintaining an F/A-18 in the Persian Gulf. Makes you wonder should we give him the M-4 or should we trust him/her a bit more when s/he’s at home?

I don't know what the connection is between a gun culture and the instinct to tackle and wrestle the shooter down. At Virginia Tech, as I remember the reports, people didn't run at the shooter. They waited in their places for their turn to be shot.

The connection isn't whether you were raised in a gun culture but rather one in which you're indoctrinated to not resist. We hear this all the time when you hear that some store owner refused the robber and instead beaned him over the head with a bottle. The cops will always say yeah, he was brave but better off handing over the till.

Gun ownership and murder rates are not very well correlated. Fifty years ago gun ownership in the US and Canada were about the same yet Canada had only few murders a year. Switzerland and Israel have damn near universal availability of high quality fully automatic military assault rifles and virtually no murders.

When a Russian friend of mind pointed out that the murder rates in the old USSR and the US were about the same I asked him why he thought this was so. His answer was that in Russia life is cheap and murder is the true American national sport. It's all about the culture

Job - "It is a good thing that no responding citizen shot another one in the AZ incident. We must admit that we were a bit lucky in that unarmed citizens were able to disarm Mr. Loughner as quickly as they were.

I am very glad that armed people responded. They could have saved many lives -- as they have in other incidents.

Much better than the situation at VA Tech where no one had a gun in that "gun-free zone" and the shooting went on for a long time.'

Job raises the other side of this better than others. That the deterrance of lots more people being armed may outweigh the chance that the newly armed may contain more Loughners or Kim Jong Seoungs. (VT shooter), and that the collateral damage of armed citizen heroes - outweighs the harm otherwise done.Like a lot of people, I'm fine with screened people being armed, being allowed to carry as long as they pass a training course that shows they have decent judgment and are fully aware of the rules and laws governing use of deadly force.But not flaming nutballs like Jared Loughner packing heat.

There is a case to be made either way - the armed hero citizen who deters or stops crime vs. the armed hero citizen who shoots his family to death, then himself. The armed hero citizen Juwan who shoots fellow hero armed citizen Mustafa X because he fears for his life. And the various armed citizens without criminal record who "Go Postal".

My bone in this is that the brother of a coworker I knew well, from a family of law-abiding NRA members - got fired. Went home and killed all his family as he was in debt and left a note saying it was better than them ending on welfare, then left his dead family and went to work, killing 4, then himself.

(The Crypto Jew)Went home and killed all his family as he was in debt and left a note saying it was better than them ending on welfare, then left his dead family and went to work, killing 4, then himself..

Did he use a gun? And if he hadn’t one of those, would a knife have worked? Mayhap we need Knife Control? Or how about he piles them all into the car and drives off a bridge? Better think about Car Control? Or what if he sets the house on fire? Now let’s move onto Flammable Material Control…I don’t mean to make light of the tragedy, but your “point” doesn’t really bear up, does it? IF you’re determined to kill your family you will. I might add distraught parents have used ALL those methods of murder, in my recent memory. What is the answer to that, Knife, Car, Petrol Control Laws? The answer to that is a cool head and/or a kind heart and a trust in Yhwh…not some barbarian rite of self-destruction, not bringing down some Gotterdammerung on your family! And the presence or absence of guns has NOTHING to do with whether you are going believe in yhwh or simply “Rage rage against the dying lf the light.”

And yet, the record shows that police are about six times as likely as other armed citizens to kill an innocent person.

=========================The obvious stares you in the nose. It is the collective number of situations a cop in a violent city even in semi-peaceful rural communities faces vs. perhaps a once in a lifetime "situation" of the armed citizen confronting a violent dangerous person while armed. Odds increase with accumulating "chances" to mess up.

(Remember cops like out troops are basically young civilians who seek a job - with the worst psychologies and those with judgments screened out of joining, then given extra training. By definition, the average Marine or average cop is statistically more fit to carry a firearm ready to use than an average unscreened & untrained civilian.)

Curiously, Marines and Iraqi security personnel were some 3000 times more likely to shoot unarmed civilians in Tal Afar or Baghdad or blow up a house with grenades with no bad guys in it than the same Marines while stationed at Camp Pendleton.

Thanks to the commenters who have brought me to speed on concealed carry laws in some states I would not have thought would allow it. Good. I live in the deep south and am surrounded by religious fanatics, red necks, KKKers, black panthers, black Muslims, criminals and grifters of all races and creeds and yet we require a bit more than one form and an hour's wait. I don't personally carry a weapon unless I am on my way to or from hunting but I am giving it serious thought.

jerryofva said...Gun ownership and murder rates are not very well correlated. Fifty years ago gun ownership in the US and Canada were about the same yet Canada had only few murders a year===========Guns are simply a leverager of violence. Easier to kill or rob with a gun - anyone in any physical condition with very little training becomes a lethal threat.

So if you introduce abundant guns to races and cultures with a high propensity for crime and violence - you will see exponential increases in deaths and serious injury.But white Vermont has little violent crime with lots of guns. If you gave every Japanese a gun, odds are the suicide rate would soar, but little to no impact on crime.You can also supress violence with an intimidating, harsh system of rule and justice even in a violence prone race and culture. The tribal system and Sharia and Patron Law and the much derided "swift Southern justice" - suppressed commonly armed people from shedding blood. Because "everyone would know who did it" and within hours or weeks at the outside, the culprit(s) would be caught and butchered.

Modernization and anonymity make, say, a violence prone black thug to act much differently in modern America, Nigeria, the Bahamas than those same people 50 years ago. Culture changes and increasing opportunity to get away with a crime or get away with lighter punishment than in the past if caught.

@Kirk Parker - My point about Ft. Hood is that it presents a very high bar for the level of trained people carrying arms. Of course, most people on base do not carry sidearms, but still there are a lot of people trained, armed, and prepared. Certainly more than there were at VT before anyone thought of a gun ban. I just don't believe that removing bans will cause raise the number of people carrying on college campuses to a level that Ft. Hood was at.

By coincidence, I had a conversation last Wednesday (i.e., before the shooting) with two people in church band who are ex law enforcement and licensed to carry concealed. Neither carries in Blacksburg. Both take their guns with them (at least occasionally) to Richmond and Roanoke. I grew up in South Jersey near Trenton. Haven't been back in a while, but back in the day there were several who carried.

@A.Worthington - Blacksburg one of the most liberal spots in the state??? Ok, it's one of the most liberal spots in this dark red corner of the Western VA, but you have to drive a couple of hours to get to any place that can truly be called liberal. Have you ever been within 500 miles of Blacksburg?

But only the first classroom experienced a sneak attack. People in subsequent classrooms had plenty of very loud warning.

I question whether they could identify the sounds as gunshots. When the unthinkable happens, it's hard to think that it's happening. Situational awareness argues against it. Maybe now, if it happened again, people would react to the sounds of gunfire appropriately. If it happened in my building though, I'd more than likely go out in the hall to see what the noise was. Curiosity killed the cat.

Sorry, I must be denser than usual today because I still don't get what you think it is about Ft. Hood that is relevant to anything else. "High bar"? High bar in what way? The varying amount of training of the different people present that day seems completely irrelevant to me, because they are all equally barred from carrying on the base!

It takes a special kind of courage to run to the sound of gunfire not to mention trying to physically take down the gunman.

An AK on full auto goes dark int about four seconds. You could be right next to him and not have your wits until he was reaching for the second magazine. At that point you're probably safer going for the tackle than running away.

@Kirk - Let me put it in terms of a thought experiment. Suppose that instead of putting a gun ban on VT, the state had no restrictions at all on firearms of any kind. Do you maintain that in April of 2007 the level of armament and preparedness at VT would have been equal to that of Ft. Hood in 2009. We can only guess, but I don't think it would have been close. It was not close before the gun ban. I don't see why it would have gotten that much better by 2007.

question whether they could identify the sounds as gunshots. When the unthinkable happens, it's hard to think that it's happening. Situational awareness argues against it. Maybe now, if it happened again, people would react to the sounds of gunfire appropriately. If it happened in my building though, I'd more than likely go out in the hall to see what the noise was

But you know how to put a condom on a banana.

Gee, if only our schools also taught students how to safely handle and fire a handgun. Then they would clearly recognize gunfire. They wouldn't be ignorant about guns either. They'd at least know enough to recognize # of shots fired vs mag capacity, and the sound of a mag being pulled out for a reload.

I think you're misinformed about the Ft. Hood incident. No one is allowed to carry on base except for law enforcement (MP and/or civilian police contractors.) So in your thought experiment, the soldiers at Ft. Hood are in exactly the same predicament as the students at VT--disarmed by law or administrative fiat, and dependent on someone else for their safety.

Kirk, Perhaps I am misinformed about Ft. Hood, and the military police presence there is much smaller than the military bases I've been to. I don't know what the administrative rules were, but the situation that I've seen when I've visited bases is that the only armed people other than those involved in training are guards and MPs. But compared to any college campus I've been to there are a LOT of MPs. I suppose I should stop using Ft. Hood as an example since I've never been there, but I grew up next to McGuire AFB and went there often. Short of requiring people to carry, I don't think people will ever reach 10% the level of preparedness. The army of Davids will assess the degree of difficulty and danger of carrying, balance it against the threat level, and leave their slingshots home.

Awesome! Finally we're getting somewhere. Thanks for persisting in the discussion with me.

"... when I've visited bases is that the only armed people other than those involved in training are guards and MPs."

Yes, correct almost everywhere. I seem to recall a big stink when a new base commander up in Alaska instituted that rule there, too.

"But compared to any college campus I've been to there are a LOT of MPs."

Most likely so, but at last we are onto the point where we're disconnecting: as far as I can tell and observe, the number may be higher, but it's nowhere near enough to make a difference in the instant. It's not like there's a sniper overwatch on every single group of people everywhere on the base. (Though the difference you observe explains why Hasan's rampage lasted for a shorter time than the VT guy's did.)

"Short of requiring people to carry, I don't think people will ever reach 10% the level of preparedness."

Well, let's have some more discussion about what minimum level of carrying is required to have any beneficial effect. I'm not sure that it needs to be anywhere near as large as 10%, but I'm not basing this on anything in particular. Say more...

"The army of Davids will assess the degree of difficulty and danger of carrying, balance it against the threat level, and leave their slingshots home."

What danger? Or do you mean danger of running afoul of stupid, hoplophobic malum prohibitum restrictions? Other than that, I'm not aware of any. I carry pretty much every day, unless I'm out of state in one of the anti-gun h*llh*les, er, I mean, paradises like DC or MD. Neither difficulty nor danger has seemed particularly an issue.